On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 16:38:42 +1300, Anybody
<anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article <t17qk2lahq7iuerhcejg7mrh3o6k8n8od7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ed Chilada
><nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 11:55:21 +1300, Anybody
>> <anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <Xns987125374963Eivanotter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ivan Otter
>> >Rudakov <ivanotter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Just needs to be something fitting. 1983 TA is not fitting anymore.
>> >> Just like we are all sure that David won't be Michael (hes just too
OLD)
>> >> KITT won't be an old TA (ditto).
>> >
>> >And it then won't be "Knight Rider", just some modernised rubbish full
>> >of silly ill-fitting ideas that's hiding behind the name of the
>> >original show for tha sake of making money during the current fad of
>> >remakes / updates. :-(
>>
>> Please explain exactly what should be made, for you to consider it a
>> Knight Rider film, including the character, actors, cars, settings and
>> potential plot. Essentially, outline the film that *you* think should
>> be made. Please don't bail by saying that one shouldn't be made.
>
>That's precisely what I personally do want: NO so-called "Knight Rider"
>movie and no more idiotic "remakes" / "updates.
That is *such* a cop-out! I knew you'd bail!
>No matter what they do they can not possibly re-capture the essence
>that made "Knight Rider" (or whatever) what it was. They simply create
>some modernised nonsense
That's your assumption. You can't start explaining what it is you
won't like about the new movie and then when asked what you think the
movie *should* be like, just sidestep and say that you don't want one
made at all!
So I ask you *again*. Please explain what you would like the new film
to be like (characters, actors, settings, storyline), for you to *not*
consider it to be "modernised nonsense". Please don't bail this time.
> that doesn't fit and then they wonder why most
> of the time it bombs badly.
Which re-makes bombed badly? Mission Impossible gave us three very
popular movies, Charlie's Angels did two. Dukes of Hazzard was quite
popular, it certainly didn't bomb. So since you say that "most of the
time" they bomb badly, you must have quite a list. I'd like to see
this list.
> It's totally illogical to pee all over the existing fan base.
It's not peeing over the fan base. Even if the movie was really bad or
you didn't like it for whatever reason, it doesn't make the DVDs you
have of the show any different does it!
> If that fan base can't support a movie version, then
> don't make it, make something else instead.
Why does the fan base have to support a movie version? Surely the
point of a movie (or any new product), is not just to appeal to those
who already liked it, but to appeal to a whole new generation of
potential fans? It's not the fan base that has to support a movie
version, but the source material.
|
